This article examines the paradox of war and pacifism in
the Bible, where paradox means apparent contradiction. The examination
includes a review of the major positions Christians have taken on the paradox
historically, from that of pacifism, to qualified participation, to the
crusade. Borrowing from the natural and social sciences, as well as the
science of biblical hermeneutics, a resolution of the paradox is put forth.
Essentially, the resolution fits closest with the tradition begun by Augustine
of qualified participation, known as the "Just War" doctrine.
However, the resolution also offers a unique critique of the "Just
War" doctrine, and lays the basis for further study.

One longstanding and troubling debate in the history of
Christianity has been the dispute over the paradox of war and pacifism found in
the Bible. From the earliest records to the many debates in the 1980s,
Christians and non-Christians have debated whether a literal, or even
metaphorical, reading of the Bible provides reasons for Christians to support,
oppose, or qualify their participation in wars sponsored by the nation. Even
today, national leaders, both Christian and non-Christian, publicly justify
support for wars in terms familiar to many people that reflect this debate. Wars
of defense are labeled "just"
wars; wars of aggression are not.1

Given the nature of the positions adopted by different
Christians, one would conclude that the Bible is contradictory on the issue of
war and pacifism. Some scholars have even argued that the God of the Old
Testament is a vengeful God, while the God of the New Testament is a loving God.
I believe, however, that a careful reading of the biblical passages which treat
the issues of war and pacifism (or nonretaliation, to be more precise), and a
comparison of the results of this reading with the positions of many debate
participants, reveal the issue to be more of a paradox than a contradiction,
where paradox means an apparent contradiction. If so, then, the debate may be
amenable to resolution.

I will attempt to bring forth the resolution in the following
way. First, the essential positions of the paradox will be developed as fully as
can fit in a short article; second, I will examine the historic resolutions that
Christians have provided to the problem and offer a critique of each; and third,
I will propose a new way to look at the problem which I hope will yield a common
ground upon which Christians can unite.

The focus of this paper will be on the position Christians,
as part of their larger society, can take. It will not address the specific
concerns of Christians that live in a democratic versus a nondemocratic society.
For the Christian, different problems emerge in a democratic society that do not
appear in a nondemocratic one. The right to participate, the challenge of
deciding when, where, and in what form Christian values ought to be made law,
and the role of the Christian in a non-Christian government all deserve serious
attention, but are not the emphases here. Obviously, such problems are not the
lot of Christians in nondemocratic societies, and democracy is still,
historically, a novel form of government, so one would expect that specific
Christian solutions to these problems are still being worked out. Here, the
focus will be narrowed to that which I hope all Christians in all societies can
agree.

The Paradox

Pacifism: The principal support for the view that the
Bible advocates pacifism comes from Christ's sermon on the mount. In Matthew
5:39-44, he states:

But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but
whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if
anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And
whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks
of you and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have
heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But
I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.2

In addition, in Luke 6:27-35, from Christ's sermon on the
plain:

But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to
those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat
you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever
takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to
everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand
it back. And just as you want men to treat you, treat them in the same way.
And if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even
sinners love those who love them. And if you lend to those from whom you
expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners,
in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good,
and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you
will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil
men.

This position seems extreme, especially to modern man.
Seemingly, for any offense, the Christian is not to respond to even violent
behavior directed at himself. If stolen from, the Christian is to offer even
more than was taken in the first place. And rather than lend money to someone in
need, we are, if called upon, to give it without expectation of return.

There are at least two fundamental assumptions to the
pacifist position.3 The first is that killing is always wrong. Murder
is murder, whether in one's own society or another's society. If murder cannot
be justified at home, then it cannot be justified in another country, whatever
the reasons given for it. War ought therefore to be regarded as murder on a mass
scale.

A second assumption of the pacifist position is that
resisting evil with force is wrong. Evil should never be resisted with physical
force, but with the spiritual force of love. The Christian and Old Testament
Hebrew is never to retaliate, nor repay evil with evil, for vengeance belongs to
God (Deuteronomy 32:35). Paul seems to confirm this in Romans 12:19-21.

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for
the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the
Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a
drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be
overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Private and public capacities do not alter the command that
"Thou shall not kill." What
a private citizen cannot do in his neighborhood, he cannot do in another
country, simply because he holds political office and responsibility.

War: Support for the position that the individual has a
responsibility to fight in wars directed by the leaders of his nation is more
complicated. Generally, support is derived from a study of ancient Israel as
depicted in the Bible and by New Testament injunctions to obey authority. In
examining ancient Israel, we will examine three distinct periods: (1) the
pre-Theocratic, (2) the Theocratic, and (3) the Monarchic. We will also consider
the legitimacy of Gentile nations in waging war.

(1) Pre-Theocracy

The first record of war before Israel was formed is taken
from Genesis 14, where Abraham battles four kings for abducting his relative,
Lot. In the account, Abraham trained 318 men for battle, defeated the coalition
of four kings, retook Lot, and stole all the defeated enemies' goods. Upon his
return from battle, he is met by the king of Salem, and priest of God,
Melchizedek. Abraham gives the king a tithe of his spoils of war and Melchizedek
replies in verses 19-20: " Blessed be Abraham of God Most High, Possessor
of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your
enemies into your hand."Here,
even before Israel is formed as a nation, God is depicted as not only
sanctioning the war, but also as the source of victory for the yet-formed
nation.4 Later, in Genesis 15:16-21, God promises Abraham (still
Abram) that the promised land will be given to his descendants after 400 (or so)
years of slavery in Egypt. Genesis 15:16 says: "Then in the fourth
generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet
complete." The prophecy is that
after 400 years, the evil of Canaan would reach a peak, and they would be
displaced.

(2) Theocracy of Israel

A theocracy is a unique form of government in which God
himself is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, and his laws are taken as the
statute book of the kingdom. Israel's theocracy existed from the period of
Moses, Joshua, and the twelve judges, as the appointees and agents of Jehovah.
Two types of warfare occurred during Israel's theocracy: wars of extermination;4
and limited wars. Wars of extermination are often cited by non-Christians as a
reason to reject the Bible. However, the wars of extermination were specific to
the period when Israel was a theocracy.

The wars of extermination were also specific to the enemies
Israel faced.6 Typically, such a war required that Israel's soldiers
put to the sword not only all the able-bodied men under arms, but all the men,
both young and old, including the elders, sometimes the women and children, and
even at times all the farm and domesticated animals, the crops and material
possessions, and even the city itself.

One famous war of this type is the one recounted in the
destruction of Jericho. Joshua 6:20-27 says:

So the people shouted, and the priests blew the trumpets,
and it came about, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, that the
people shouted with a great shout and the wall fell down flat, so that the
people went up into the city, every man straight ahead, and they took the
city. And they utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman,
young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword. And
they burned the city with fire, and all that was in it. Only the silver and
gold and articles of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house
of the Lord. Then Joshua made them take an oath at that time, saying cursed
before the Lord is the man who rises up and builds this city Jericho; with the
loss of his first-born he shall lay its foundation, and with the loss of his
youngest son he shall set up its gates. So the Lord was with Joshua, and his
fame was in all the land.

In this case, not only was everything except the riches
destroyed, but a curse was put on the city so that no one would attempt to
rebuild it. Other examples of such wars can be cited:

1. With the Benjamites of Gibeah, Judges 19:22-30.

2. With Jericho and Ai, Joshua 8:18-26.

3. With Makkedah, Joshua 10:28.

4. With Lachish, Joshua 10:32.

5. With Eglon, Joshua 10:35; Debir, verse 39; and all the
cities of the Negev and Shephelah, verse 40.

6. In the northern campaign against Hazor, Madon, Shimron,
and Achshaph, Joshua 11:11-14.

While these wars of extermination are difficult to come to
terms with, they nonetheless were for a purpose. According to one biblical
scholar:

In every case the baneful infection of degenerate idolatry
and moral depravity had to be removed before Israel could safely settle down
in these regions and set up a monotheistic, law-governed commonwealth as a
testimony for the one true God. Much as we regret the terrible loss of life,
we must remember that far greater mischief would have resulted if they had
been permitted to live on in the midst of the Hebrew nation. These
incorrigible degenerates of the Canaanite civilization were a sinister threat
to the spiritual survival of Abraham's race. The failure to carry through
completely the policy of extermination of the heathen in the Land of Promise
later led to the moral and religious downfall of the Twelve Tribes in the days
of the Judges (Judges 1:1-3, 10-15, 19-23). Not until the time of David, some
centuries later, did the Israelites succeed in completing their conquest of
all the land that had been promised to the descendants of Abraham (cf.
Gen.15:18-21).7

There were, of course, other wars fought during the theocracy
of Israel, which did not involve wars of extermination.8

(3) The Monarchic Period

After Israel's rebellion against the theocracy, the nation
was given the right to be ruled as a monarchy. The monarchy of Israel was
different from other monarchies throughout history, in that God directly
appointed Israel's civil rulers (a claim, of course, imitated by other
monarchies) and appointed a prophet to keep the king's ambition in check
(neither wanted nor allowed in other monarchies).9 Perhaps the
monarchy of David best illustrates the type of warfare waged by ancient Israel.
Four distinct phases can be detected during David's lifetime:

1. Cave of Adullam (I Samuel 22:1-2). During this
period, David was considered an outlaw and hunted by King Saul. Although
presented the opportunity several times, David never attempted to take the life
of the king.

2. Civil War (2 Samuel 2:8-5:5). After Saul died, the
house of David fought the house of Saul for control of the throne.

3. Defensive Wars (2 Samuel 5:17-25; I Chronicles
18:1; 2 Samuel 21:15-22). Because of David's previous successes, the neighboring
Philistines attacked Israel to preempt any aggressive moves. David brilliantly
defeated them and removed the Philistines as a threat, but did not annihilate
them.

4. Empire Building (2 Samuel 8:1-15; 12:26-31). David
later conducts a series of aggressive wars by conquering the Moabites, Arameans,
Ammonites, Edomites, and Amalekites, but does not eradicate them.

The monarchic period includes civil, defensive, and
aggressive wars. Notably absent was a rebellion against the divinely sanctioned
authority of King Saul.

Gentile Nations also Raised Up Through War

In a general statement from Nebuchadnezzar's dream, it is
revealed that God rules over all nations, not just Israel alone. In Daniel 4:7,
it is disclosed that "This sentence is by the decree of the angelic
watchers, and the decision is a command of the holy ones, in order that the
living may know, that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and
bestows it on whom He wishes, and sets it over the lowliest of men."
Twelve months later, Nebuchadnezzar's sovereignty is removed from him for a time
(Daniel 4:32).

Other passages treat the issue of God raising up Gentile
nations through war. In Daniel 1:1-2, God delivers Judah into Babylon's hands:

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah,
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord
gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the vessels of
the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of
his god, and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his god.

God is also depicted as setting up Cyrus the Great in Isaiah
44:28.

The New Testament confirms the authority given to men to
establish and govern their respective societies. In Romans 13:1-2, Paul writes:

Let every person be in subjection to the governing
authority. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist
are established by God. Therefore, he who resists authority has opposed the
ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon
themselves.

These periods in the Old Testament reveal that war was waged
and the responsibility of citizens was to fight for their nations. Moreover,
wars were fought throughout Israel's history, under three separate forms of
government, not just when it was a theocratic state. Further, by modern
standards some wars were extremely vicious, involving the killing of all the
inhabitants and destroying the enemy's possessions. And not only Israel, but
even Gentile nations waged war, and God's hand was evident in bringing forth the
victory, even against Judah.

Historical Attempts to Resolve the Paradox

Historically, Christians have adopted many positions on war.
However, three broad positions encompass the range of choices made over the
millennia: (1) pacifism, (2) qualified participation, and (3) the crusade. A
brief examination of the three positions is warranted here.

(1) Pacifism:

The argument is that historically Christianity was originally
pacifist.10 After the closing of the New Testament canon, historians
note that there is no evidence that Christians served in the Roman army. Indeed,
in 174 A.D. the famous heretic Celsus reproached Christians for their failure to
serve in the military and defend the empire.

If all men were to do the same as you, there would be
nothing to prevent the king from being left in utter solitude and desertion
and the force of the Empire would fall into the hands of the wildest and most
lawless barbarians.11

Between 180-313 A.D., both Eastern and Western Christianity
repudiated Christians participating in warfare, though some were allowed
military service if arms were not taken up. By the time of Constantine's
conversion to Christianity (ca. 312-313 A.D.), however, some Christians
participated in the army. After Christianity was legalized in 380 A.D., only a
small minority of Christians have subsequently refused military service.

Some elements of pacifism were reborn during and soon after
the Reformation. Contemporary pacifists account for a small minority of
Christians today. They include the Anabaptists and their continental
descendants: the Mennonites, the Amish, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren and
the Quakers. All but the Quakers believe not only in pacifism, but also in
complete social and political separation from the society. Although they do not
deny the state the right to bear the sword, the separatists believe that
Christians ought not to participate in the government at all. The Quakers, on
the other hand, believe in participation, but are not allowed to take up arms,
lest they resort to a sub-Christian ethic. But by suffering and patience, the
Quakers are enjoined to reform the society in which they participate.

There are several reasons and traditions for their pacifism.
Some believe that participation in war is completely incompatible with the
commands of Christ. Tertullian was noted to have asked, "If we are enjoined
to love our enemies, whom are we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to
retaliate.12 Origen stated another reason. He believed that
Christians, by their prayers and disciplined lives, are of more use to kings
than are soldiers.13

Early on, there were other reasons to avoid military service.
Christians during the early Roman Empire needed little reminder that they
suffered persecution at the hands of the Empire. By not serving in the army they
avoided additional persecution. Since the army did most of the persecuting of
Christians, Christians would naturally be reluctant to enlist. Moreover, many
early Christians believed that the coming of the Lord was very near and they did
not want to be in the position of defending the very army that Christ would
return to destroy. Finally, any government service involved some compromise with
idolatry. Indeed, the very reason for much of the persecution of the early
church was due to Christians who stubbornly refused to acknowledge Rome's pagan
gods.

Modern pacifists tend to follow more closely the first idea,
that participation in warfare is incompatible with the commands of Christ. Since
official persecution (with minor exceptions) ceased by 380 A.D. there have not
been the same historical reasons to justify pacifism. Perhaps the best
expression of the sentiment of contemporary pacifism is found in a Dunker tract
of about 1900 that notes:

in support of the principles of nonresistance the following
scriptural facts: "Christ is the Prince of Peace"
(Isa. 9:6). "His kingdom is not of this world"
(John 18:36). "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal"
(II Cor. 10:4). "We are to love our enemies"
(Matt. 5:43). "We are to overcome evil with good"
(Rom. 12:21). "We are to pray for them which despitefully use us and
persecute us" (Matt. 5:44).14

(2) Qualified Participation (The Just War Doctrine):

The most longstanding and widespread attempt to resolve the
paradox follows the tradition of the "Just War" doctrine. The
"Just War" doctrine was first developed by Augustine (354-430), who
became Bishop of Hippo. Until his conversion to Christianity, Augustine was
steeped in pagan philosophy, especially neo-platonism and Manichaeism. Against
the attack by pagan philosophers that the sack of Rome was due to the moral
corruption of Christianity, Augustine penned his famous defense, The City of
God. In it, Augustine was the first to articulate the notion of the type of
war Christians can participate in. Essentially, he wrote that for a Christian to
participate in a war, that war had to be deemed as just. Perhaps the best
summary statement of Augustine's development of the "Just War"
principles is the following:

The just war is to be fought under the authority of the
state, and is to limit its goals to the restoration of justice or the
preservation of peace. Moreover, the just war ...
in order to be just ... must be a
last resort, entered into only after all methods of solving disputes
non-violently have been exhausted. Further, the just war must be fought
justly, that is, with special care taken to protect non-combatants, and with
the level of violence strictly limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish
the goal of justice, that is, the restoration of peace or the preservation of
justice.15

With modifications as to intent in war added later by Thomas
Aquinas, there are seven generally accepted tenets of the "Just War"
doctrine. They are divided into two types of arguments. The first, jus ad
bellum, are the principles that establish the justness of the war itself;
the second, jus in bello, are the principles that establish just conduct
in the war itself:

Jus ad bellum (Justness of War):

(1) Competent authority: A war must be declared by
politically responsible authorities and not by private individuals.

(2) Probability of success: A war should not be
undertaken if there is no obvious hope for success.

(3) Last Resort: A war must be a last resort after
sincere efforts have been made to resolve the controversy peacefully.

(4) Just Intent: The object of a war must be peace and
reconciliation and not the unlimited destruction of the enemy state.

(5) Just Cause: The war must be an act of defense in
response to armed aggression.

Jus in bello(Justice in war):

(6) Proportionality: The good brought about by a war
should outweigh its evils in cost and destruction to both sides and the means
used should be proportional to the harm caused.

(7) Discriminate means: Military actions should not be
waged that directly intend to take the lives of noncombatants (i.e., civilians
or innocents).16

Throughout history, some have sanctioned the "Just
War" doctrine, while others have condemned it. Some have used it to support
almost every war their country has fought in, and others have used it to oppose
every war their country has fought in. From the time of Augustine until
approximately 1000 A.D., most Christian soldiers were required to do 40 days of
penance for fighting in a war and killing enemy soldiers, however "just"
the war was declared. After Thomas Aquinas, a Christian soldier was given the
responsibility to not fight in an unjust war.17

Modern day application of the "Just War" doctrine
has led to many problems with the advent of nuclear weapons. In 1983 the
Catholic Bishops issued a paper that renounced nuclear war, but allowed for the
interim acceptability of nuclear deterrence in the pursuit of a better means of
preserving the peace.18 In 1986, the Methodist Bishops went further
and not only renounced nuclear weapons as well as nuclear deterrence, but also
renounced defenses against nuclear weapons, specifically the U. S. Strategic
Defense Initiative.

Perhaps the complexity of the problem of reconciling nuclear
deterrence and the "Just War" doctrine may be best summed up by a
provisional study document of the World Council of Churches, issued in 1958,
that stands to this day:

Christians must never consent to [the] use [of nuclear
armaments] in all-out war . . . We are agreed on one point: This is that
Christians should openly declare that the all out use of these weapons should
never be resorted to. Moreover, that Christians must oppose all policies which
give evidence of leading to all-out war. Finally, if all-out war should occur,
Christians should urge a cease fire, if necessary, on the enemy's terms,
and resort to non-violent resistance. We purposely refrain from defining
the stage at which all-out war may be reached (emphasis added).19

Such a position is not likely to simplify the problem or help
Christians make decisions during a crisis about whether the war is just or not,
nor whether to support nuclear deterrence in peacetime or not. Indeed, it is
more likely to add to the confusion that already exists.

(3) Crusade:

A third alternative in the resolution of the paradox that
Christians have attempted (primarily in the middle ages) has been the crusade.
The crusade is fundamentally different from the above two positions. According
to one scholar:

A crusade was to be fought under the authority of the church
or of a charismatic religious leader, but not by the state itself, although it
might potentially be conducted by a theocratic state. The goal of the crusade
was not to be limited to restoring peace or preserving justice; the goal instead
was to uphold, preserve, or expand the dominion of the church itself against the
threats, real or imagined, of its enemies.20

The crusades began first in the late eleventh century at the
instigation of the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118) in an attempt
to regain territory lost to the Seljuk Turks. But Alexius lacked workers. He
appealed to Pope Urban II with some arguments for help that remain to this day
unknown to historians. At the Council of Clermont in 1095, the Pope gave an
eloquent speech in favor of a crusade against the infidels. The reasons were
probably twofold: first, because many Christians were irked by Turkish (i.e.,
Muslim) control over Jerusalem; and second, because Alexius promised to reunite
Eastern and Western Christianity under the authority of the Pope.21
This speech gave Europe its first ideology of expansionism.

The appeal was accepted by a wide array of people in Europe.
Not only the aristocracy, but also the townspeople and the peasantry accepted
the rationale for a crusade for many reasons, not the least of which was the
horrible living conditions in Europe at the time. But the crusades had a
downside to them; principally, the fact that the character of the armies sent on
the crusades were never very "Christian"
by any standard. Beginning with the first crusade and throughout subsequent
ones, and despite the appeals of priests and the nobility, many in the peasant
army sought to purge themselves for this "holy"
mission by killing and torturing the Jews of northern Europe as a prelude to
waging war on the Muslims.22 Few of the crusaders ever made it to the
holy land, and those who did left little by way of improvement either to the
situation in Europe or in Jerusalem. The rationale for the crusades was extreme,
and the results were too. Today Christians have little tolerance for this form
of resolution to the paradox of war and pacifism.23

Resolving the Paradox

Historical attempts at resolving the paradox have taken three
forms. However, in practice, contemporary Christians for the most part reject
the crusade. Of the two remaining resolutions, pacifism and qualified
participation, the vast majority support the latter. One of the problems with
the "Just War" doctrine, however, is that it does not seriously
address the concerns of the pacifists, especially with respect to Christ's
sermon on the mount. One of the principal problems of the pacifist position is
that it fails to address the concerns of the "Just War" adherents that
Christians are to obey authority and participate in the life of the state. The
two extreme positions, however, are the pacifist and the crusader. As will be
demonstrated below, they are based on similar logical fallacies and abuse of
biblical hermeneutics. Once corrected, the paradox can be resolved.

The historical attempts at resolving the paradox of war and
pacifism are similar in some respects to how Christians have historically
resolved other paradoxes.24 However, borrowing from the tools of good
biblical scholarship (hermeneutics) and the methodology of the natural and
social sciences, there are certain methodological tools for addressing the
problem of paradox resolution. Of the five principles or tools available, two
are important here:

1. Establish the true frame of reference, or point of view,
of a given passage or passages; and

2. Establish the correct definition of a given system or
systems under consideration.25

The first thing to note about all passages that treat the
issue of the justifiability of war, do so with regard to the state, not the
individual. All passages that treat the principles of nonviolence (nonretaliation)
do so with respect to the individual, and not the state. The point of view and
the systems under consideration are different in each case. In other words, the
biblical principles of warfare are for the state and the biblical principles for
nonretaliation are for the individual. In the former, the system in view is the
state system, that is, the system of states in the international community and
their relations among one another. In the latter, the system in view is the
individual within the state and their relations among one another within that
system.

The problem one encounters when applying the morality of
nonretaliation (the morality given to individuals) to the morality of the state
is what is called in political theory the "cross-level"
fallacy.26 Just as in the natural sciences, one must regard the
paradox of light as both a particle (photon) and energy (wave-electromagnetism),
yet not impute the results of one study onto the other, so also it is important
to separate the systems under consideration. With two different systems under
consideration, we should regard those passages that treat one without
application to the other, unless specifically warranted by scriptures -
i.e., the morality or right to warfare may be okay for the state against other
states, but not for individuals against one another within the state, and the
morality of nonretaliation may be okay for the individual within the state, but
not for the state itself.

Several theorists have identified that the state system is
fundamentally different from the system of individuals within a state, and each
has different conditions.27 Within a state, there exists the
condition of authority. Among individuals, when confronted by a wrong,
the victim can appeal to the governing authorities for a just resolution, so
long as the wronged individual's morality is nonretaliation. There is scriptural
support for the condition of authority within a state, and the right of the
state to execute vengeance on behalf of individuals. According to Paul in Romans
13:1, 3-4:

Let every person be in subjection to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist
are established by God... For rulers
are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have
no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same;
for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be
afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of
God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.28

Violence as a way of life is abhorred.29 But
while the individual should not retaliate, he is allowed to appeal to the
authorities for a just settlement. In Acts 25:9-11, Paul uses the appeal
process when confronted with an unjust charge against him:

But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul
and said, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before
me on these charges?" But Paul
said, I am standing before Caesar's tribunal, where I ought to be tried. I
have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know. If then I am a
wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to
die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one
can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar."

Here, Paul does not deny the state the authority and the
right to execute him if he had done evil. But he also avails himself of the
governing authorities.

For the international system, there exists no higher human
authority than the state itself. In other words, if a state is wronged by
another state, there is no higher authority to which it may appeal. Technically,
this condition is called anarchy. Anarchy within the system of states
compels states to seek self-help methods for redressing grievances, such as
diplomatic remonstrances, embargoes, coalitions, alliances, and the ultimate
form, war. The history of nations engaging in warfare, empire building,
counter-hegemonic coalitions, and even border disputes testifies to the
effectiveness of this act in precluding the rise of a universal tyrant.
Nationalism today remains the principal force in the fractionalization of
international politics. The downfall of the Soviet Union, in addition to the
many empires throughout history, is due in no small measure to this phenomenon.

The Bible posits God as the source for the distinct
conditions at the level of the state and the international system. As noted
above, authority was established within a state to restrain evil, and the
individuals within the state were given a morality of nonretaliation and the
right of appeal to the governing authorities to execute vengeance. For the
international system, Genesis 11 depicts God as dividing people into different
nations, tribes, and tongues also for restraining evil, this time as unlimited
tyranny. In Daniel 10:20-11:1, God's angels are shown to be engaged in human
warfare to prevent the domination of the world by one power. The purpose for
such engagement is explained in Zechariah 1, for there is no peace for God's
people when the unbelieving nations are at peace with one another. And in
Matthew 10:34, Jesus Christ is depicted as coming to bring war, not peace, for
war will not cease until unbelief ceases.

Earlier it was shown that the Old Testament supports the
right of states to engage in warfare. While the New Testament writings (and the
Old) emphasize individual conduct within a state, neither Christ nor any of the
apostles repudiated the right of states to engage in war. In Luke 14:31, Christ
acknowledges the fact of kings engaging in warfare, without either condoning or
condemning it: "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in
battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough
with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty
thousand?" Further, Christ
predicts the necessity of future wars (again, without either condoning or
condemning them) as a natural condition and a prelude to end-times prophecies in
Matthew 24:5-7:

For many will come in My name, saying, I am the Christ, and
will mislead many. And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars; see
that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not
yet the end. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom,
and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.30

A stronger support emerges from John 18:36, where Christ
answers Pontius Pilate by saying, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom
were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be
delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, "My kingdom is not of this realm."
Coupled with Matthew 26:53, where Christ claims that he could readily call forth
some 12 legions of angels at a moment's notice, the right to fight is not
disputed, but the time and place are. According to Zechariah 14,
Psalm 149, Joel 2, I Thessalonians 3:13, and Revelation 19, Jesus Christ and all
the raptured saints will return to exterminate the reprobates. When his kingdom
is of this world, he will fight, but not until that time.

In Matthew 8:10 Christ praises the faith of a non-Jewish
believer, who was a centurion in the Roman army. More importantly, Christ did
not tell the centurion that a condition of discipleship was that he not engage
in military activities (similarly, another centurion, Cornelius of Caesarea
received high praise for his faith, in Acts 10). John the Baptist was confronted
with a more acute opportunity to inform believers that military service was
anathema to discipleship, were that the case, in Luke 3:14:

And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And
what about us, what shall we do?"
And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse
anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."

Rather than explicitly instructing them to get out of
military service, or opt for noncombat duty in the service, John instructs them
to act justly within their sphere of service, and to not abuse their position of
power. Indeed, John's instructions will be considered later as a crucial
component of how Christians ought to behave in warfare.

Paul uses military service frequently as an analogy for the
Christian way of life. For example, in 2 Timothy 2:3-4, Paul says: "Suffer
hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier in active
service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please
the one who enlisted him as a soldier."
In this case, as in the many others Paul uses, two assumptions emerge: (a) that
military service was well known and understood, for the utility of an analogy
loses its force if not; and (b) no qualification was given to military service
in the analogies. If military service, with the implication of potential for
fighting in a war, was objectionable to the Christian way of life, one would
expect Paul to qualify the analogy somewhat. Paul, and the many other authors,
never used an objectionable analogy. Indeed, when some behavior or action is
detestable, the most frequent way to illustrate it is to compare and contrast
the godly versus the ungodly behavior. Yet nowhere is military service deemed
ungodly in the Bible. Indeed, the role call of honorable godly service is given
in Hebrews 11:32-34, where strong, godly believers are intimately associated
with distinction in warfare:

And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell
of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, who
by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained
promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the
edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put
foreign armies to flight.

Critique of Positions Held

There are several problems that emerge from the study of the
various positions adopted by Christians over the centuries. Each will be taken
in turn. The principal problem with the crusade is that the church incorrectly
identifies itself with the function of the state, and a theocratic one at that.
Under Israel's theocracy, and to a lesser extent with it as a God-directed
monarchy, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the spiritual health of
the people and the physical well-being of the nation. In other words, a
proposition and its corollary are warranted for the nation of Israel,
particularly as a theocracy: spiritual health equals national health, and
its corollary, spiritual warfare equals physical warfare (i.e., combat).

Since the New Testament, however, Christ has declared that
his kingdom is not of this world. Unlike Israel, where one nation was called out
from among the many nations of the earth to be the caretakers of God's word and
to be his missionaries to the world, since then only a small minority of
believers are called out from every nation, tribe, and tongue (Revelation 5:9;
14:6). There is more focus on the individual rather than on group or national
identity (Acts 10:35). Because individuals in this age comprise this "holy"
nation (I Peter 2:9), and Christ's kingdom is not of this world, spiritual
warfare does not equal physical warfare (see Ephesians 6:12). It is
therefore a mistake, and not a benign one, to misidentify the cause of the
church31 with that of the state. Crusades cannot be justified by
scriptures.32

Pacifism, on the other hand, misidentifies the morality of
the individual with the justification for (or morality of) the behavior of the
state. It too, though for different and more benign reasons, commits the
cross-level fallacy by generalizing from individual to collective morality and
violates principles of biblical hermeneutics. And the argument from historical
evidence that early Christians were pacifists is weaker upon closer examination
than at first glance.

Many non-Jewish believers, one can infer, were in the Roman
military, and some were recorded in scriptures, yet no command was given them to
leave military service. Neither Christ, nor John the Baptist, nor any of the
Apostles, when given the chance, told (or implied to) such believers that
military service was incompatible with discipleship or the Christian way of
life. Typically such believers were praised for their faith and, in only one
case, were enjoined to act justly in their profession and be content with their
wages.

As to the historical records for Christians in military
service, it is not surprising that no records have been found, for at least two
reasons. First, in the early period, most of the Christians lived in the Middle
East and not in Rome. Moreover, Christianity was a religion of the minority for
some time and records kept from that period are not as likely to remain as those
primarily from the majority religion. Second, and more importantly, as
Christianity spread to Europe and Asia, the Roman Empire increasingly made
persecution official policy under the various Caesars for anyone who would not
publicly worship the Roman gods.33 Indeed, so scarce are the
historical records that there exists only one recorded statement of official
persecution, despite its widespread historicity: Punishments were also inflicted
on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.34

Political separation, a concomitant proposition of many
contemporary pacifists, is a separate problem and will not be treated here.
However, there is reason enough for separation or dissension in certain cases,
and many early Christians availed themselves of it. The rule seems to be that
the Christian has the right, indeed the obligation, to refuse to obey a law that
would force him into an ungodly act (for example, as a condition of service in
the Roman military, the obligation to worship Roman gods; or in the former
Soviet Union, the requirement to sign an oath of atheism). Ungodly laws of compellence,
as opposed to laws of allowance (i.e., laws that permit ungodly activity)
require the Christian to dissent from obedience.35 To extend this
right of dissension to the entire sphere of citizenship, however, seems strange.

There are several problems with the "Just War"
doctrine that are not as easily susceptible to resolution, but nonetheless
deserve some attention. First, implementing the "Just War" doctrine as
it now stands requires superhuman wisdom. No Christian will ever have enough
facts, or time, to know all the evidence regarding a country's decision to go to
war. At the highest levels, decisions to go to war are shrouded in ambiguity and
much more will that be the case in the society at large. Second, the "Just
War" doctrine sets a standard that was not always followed by Israel under
God's direction, either as a theocracy or as a monarchy. It is difficult to see
how it can be applied to any lesser system of government. And third, nothing man
can do is fully just, but rather under sin (even the study of theology).
Finally, perhaps the most important reason to re-evaluate the "Just
War" doctrine, is that to a great extent most nations go to war for reasons
other than the justness" of it.
If justice were the sole determining criterion, given our limitations, more, not
less, wars might be fought.36

Of the principles of jus ad bellum, several are
problematic from a scriptural standpoint. The one most supported by scriptures
is that the war must be declared and conducted by competent authority.
The sweep of scriptures supports the authority of government as an instrument to
keep evil in society in check. When authority breaks down, as it has in Lebanon
and in Somalia, the resultant anarchy allows for the emergence of all kinds of
evil and impairs the function of the Church. Exactly how authority is
established and maintained is not discussed and seems, therefore, to be left to
individuals in the nation to work out for themselves. The principle of competent
authority would rule out Christians serving as mercenaries, and make problematic
the fighting of revolutionary wars.37

The other four principles have problems associated with them.
The idea of probability of success seems more an idea of prudence than
one of "justness."
Now, it is claimed by "Just War" theorists that there is a close
association since, without prudence, one can involve a nation in a war that
leads to excessive misery for its citizens if it cannot be won38
However, the problem can be examined in a different way. Surely, it would make
no sense for a small nation to go on the offensive against a much stronger
nation. But can it be unjust for that same small nation to take every
precaution, and fight if need be, if that larger nation attacks the smaller? As
a matter of prudence, it may make sense to find some form of accommodation, but
the results cannot always be known beforehand. Indeed, during the winter war
between the Soviet Union and Finland, tiny Finland decided to defend itself
against a much larger adversary. Who could have known beforehand that a million
invading Soviet soldiers would suffer some 200,000 casualties attempting to
conquer the little country? In the end, the Soviet Union achieved its stated
limited war aims (i.e., territory from Finland north of Leningrad), but what
kind of result would have ensued had Finland not fought? From the behavior of
the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II in Eastern Europe, it can be
safely assumed that the arrangement by which Finland was restrained in its
foreign policy but allowed domestic sovereignty would not have held for long.
Finland's decision to fight, though in many ways not prudent at the time,
nonetheless saved its citizens from a worse fate in the future.

War as a last resort is ideal in a perfect world, but
would be difficult to determine in some cases. For example, at the outset of the
1967 Arab-Israeli war, the dawn preemptive strike by the Israeli Air Force on
Egypt may not have appeared to citizens as a choice of last resort, but
intelligence analysis provided strong evidence that an Arab surprise attack was
to be launched just a few hours later. How much more suffering, indeed loss,
would the Israelis have sustained had their leadership not authorized a
preemptive strike? Surprise attack, in contrast to preemption, is not only
militarily sound, but often the surest way to victory39 and is
extremely difficult to prepare against. Should the Israelis have waited for
their Pearl Harbor in order for the war to be more just?

The last two principles of jus ad bellum are fraught
with the same kind of difficulties. How does one judge the just intent of
the leadership of one's country? Further, while peace and reconciliation may be
appealing goals, the soundest victories have been by the destruction of the
system of the enemy state (viz., Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan). There are
some governments with whom reconciliation is not only impossible, but perhaps
more dangerous to attempt (e.g., Saddam Hussein's regime under which it
continues to seek nuclear weapons capability). Just cause has come to
mean defensive versus aggressive wars. But like the above, the difficulty is in
the details. Did Israel launch an aggressive (unjust) war in 1967 and wage a
defensive (just) war in 1973? Which outcome do the Israelis prefer? Which was
the least damaging to Israeli society?

As for the principles of jus in bello, there is more
scriptural support for them.40 Indeed, from Luke 3:14 it appears that
the biblical mandate for "justness"
extends to the sphere of responsibility of the individual. As Michael Walzer
notes, German General Rommel disobeyed a general order to execute all prisoners
of war, and history has praised Rommel's decision:

It would be very odd to praise Rommel for not killing
prisoners unless we simultaneously refused to blame him for Hitler's
aggressive wars. For otherwise he is simply a criminal and all the fighting he
does is murder or attempted murder, whether he aims at soldiers in battle or
at prisoners or at civilians Y But
we do not view Rommel that way: why not? The reason has to do with the
distinction of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. We draw a line
between the war itself, for which soldiers are not responsible, and the
conduct of the war, for which they are responsible, at least within their own
sphere of activity41

Pursuing limited war, using discriminate means, and avoiding
unjust acts all conform to the biblical view of war. The only time Israel ever
pursued wars of extermination occurred during its theocracy and, according to
prophecy, will occur again during the Second Coming. But at no other time were
wars of extermination encouraged or advocated. And when it was (and will be)
used, it was under God's personal direction.

Conclusion

In the attempt to resolve the paradox of war and pacifism, it
seems that several conclusions emerge. First, the two extreme positions, the
pacifist and the crusader, commit the cross-level fallacy and violate principles
of hermeneutics, however benign the intention. Upon closer examination, there is
little support for these positions as fully biblical ones. Each, taken logically
to the extreme, distorts the role of the Christian as a member of his society.
In the pacifist, it requires him to disengage from the society in which he
lives. In the crusader, it requires him to so identify the function of the
church with that of the state that he becomes more involved in it than with his
call to Christian service (indeed, causes him to confuse the two).

The "Just War" doctrine also has several problems,
but is perhaps the closer of the three positions held to that which can be
gleaned from scriptures. The principal problem with the doctrine is with the
principles of jus ad bellum. Except the stipulation that war must be
declared by competent authority, adherence to the other principles, besides the
problems noted above, requires the Christian to make a decision that puts him
above the authority of the state, yet does not provide him the means (knowledge
and wisdom) to make that decision. Further, it goes beyond biblical mandates to
not obey authority in very specific and fairly certain cases (viz., ungodly laws
of compellence).

On the other hand, the principles of jus in bello
(justice in war) seem warranted. Perhaps this is understood by society, for a
great many international laws of warfare stem from these ideas.42 And
these principles have the virtue of giving the individual both the
responsibility and the capability to make informed decisions within his sphere
of responsibility.

But what of the tradition of conscientious objection to
military service? Would such a reading of scriptures rule out the possibility of
avoiding military service for reasons other than to disobey an ungodly law of
compellence? I believe it is important to allow for such a possibility, not
simply on humanitarian grounds. Comparing the law of liberty (I Cor. 6:12;
10:23; and James 1:25) with the law of love (Rom. 14:1-13), one can reasonably
allow for some to not serve in armed combat if such persons' conscience cannot
allow them to do so. Furthermore, some ought not to be put in combat situations
for psychological reasons. It makes sense to preclude those from military
service who have a history of cruelty, or a tendency toward other kinds of evil.
Others, who may for other reasons struggle with cowardice, probably ought to be
excluded from military service, especially combat, for the sake of morale.43

The problem of the paradox of war and pacifism in the Bible,
and its resolution, may lead to a better analysis of the Christian's
responsibility to the state. Further, the resolution to the paradox, the
separation of systems for consideration in light of scriptural passages that
treat each, may also lead to a re-examination and evaluation of the role of the
church in society. It is to be hoped that this analysis will, at the very least,
provide common ground upon which Christians can unite and renew dialogue on so
important a topic.

Notes

1

The most recent one was found in President George
Bush's appeal to support Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm. It was widely seen,
both at home, and among many members of the United Nations, as a just war of
defense.

2

New American Standard Bible, reference edition
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1973), p. 7. All scriptures cited throughout will follow
this translation.

I have here labeled these as wars of extermination to
distinguish them from genocide (which is the systematic destruction of a racial,
political, or cultural group) since they were limited in extent; and from
unlimited wars, since the latter term implies no limit in extent, method, or
means. Nor do they fit the modern conception of total war, which implies the
entire nation working on behalf of the war effort.

6

Even so, the extermination was always limited
to the extent of reprobation. Sometimes the reprobation extended only to the
adults, other times to all human life, and other times to human life and soulish
life (birds and mammals) that had significant contact with reprobate humans, and
still other times to human life, soulish life, the material possessions and the
agricultural land of the reprobates.

7

Archer, op. cit., pp. 158-159.

8

See Judges 4, 7, 11, and 14, for example.

9

Indeed, the priests and prophets of other ancient, as
well as more modern, societies served the interest of the state and were
frequently paid well for their services, or were fired (or worse) if they failed
to support the king.

10

While this is the general argument, there is a
sizeable body of evidence that demonstrates that many early Christians staked
out positions that supported the right of the state to engage in war, and that
Christians were obliged to fight in them. See Keith B. Payne and Karl I. Payne, A
Just Defense: The Use of Force, Nuclear Weapons, and Our Conscience
(Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1987), p. 331.

11

Cited in Robert Culver, "Between War and Peace:
Old Debate in a New Age,"
Christianity Today, October 24, 1980, p. 30.

12

Cited in Ibid., p. 31. The context can be found in
Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly, and Edwin A. Quain, trans., Tertullian:
Apologetic Works and Minucius Felix Octavius(Washington, D.C.: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1962), p. 94.

For example, on the resolution of the paradox of free
will and predestination, various denominations will come down on one side or the
other; that is, some will emphasize predestination and others will emphasize
free will. Other paradoxes have had similar resolutions: heaven and hell; the
Trinity; the deity of Jesus Christ, etc. As will be detailed above, there is
good reason to keep the tension of the paradox. For example, in free will and
predestination, it keeps one from going to the extremes of legalism or
antinomianism.

The "cross-level"
fallacy comes from the study of "individual"
and "ecological" fallacies,
applied to the study of the origins of war. In the particular theory called
"Realism," several distinct
levels of analysis were noted: at the level of the individual; at the level of
the state; and at the level of interstate relations. At each level, distinct
independent variables were examined for their relation to the causes of war.
More importantly, often these distinct variables were found to be mutually
exclusive; thus, for the purposes of analysis, the separation. See J. David
Singer, International Conflict: "Three Levels of Analysis,"World Politics, April 1960, pp. 453-461; Shibley Telhami, Power and
Leadership in International Bargaining: The Path to the Camp David Accords
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), pp. 18-44.

27

Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The
Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd edition (New York: Knopf, 1960); See also
Kenneth Waltz, Man, State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1959); and Telhami, op. cit., passim.

28

See also Genesis 9:6 and Acts 25:11.

29

See Leviticus 19:17-18; Matthew 26:52; and John
18:10-11.

30

See also Mark 13:7-8.

31

The role and mission of the church as a corporate
entity of believers is not considered here except as far as its fallacious
identification with the state has been used to justify crusading warfare.

32

The critical error of the crusaders was the
presumption that conversion was through state legislation rather than through
personal repentance; similar to the Muslim error that if one lives in an Islamic
state, one is therefore a Muslim.

33

Eusbius, The History of the Church from Christ to
Constantine, G. A. Williamson, trans. (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:
Penguin Books, 1965).

The situation of when and where, and indeed whether,
believers may dissent from unjust rulers, though important, will not be
considered here. Such a discussion would have to accommodate the recent
development of liberation theology as well as many less radical positions.

36

Compare the justness of the Persian Gulf war and the
justness of intervening in Yugoslavia on behalf of the Bosnians or the Croats.
In both cases a weaker nation was/is under attack. Yet, in the former, U.S.
interests in precluding a dominant hostile power in the Persian Gulf that would
control a sizeable fraction of the world's proven oil reserves made for a more
compelling reason to intervene than humanitarian interests alone, as
demonstrated by the latter. Were justness a compelling reason to fight wars,
then one might expect intervention in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Armenia,
and Tibet, to name just a few. In the case of Tibet, all the specific atrocities
cited by the Bush Administration regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait are present
in China's invasion and occupation of Tibet, yet no call to arms has been
forthcoming.

37

For a discussion on the concerns of Christians in the
American Revolution of 1776, see George Marsden, "The American Revolution:
Partisanship, `Just Wars,' and Crusades,"
in Ronald A. Wells, ed., The Wars of America: Christian Views(Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 11-24. The moral struggle was
more important to these Christians on the issue of rebellion against established
authority than on the issue of legitimate warfare against a hostile nation.

See, for example, the discussion of surprise attacks
in Alex Roberto Hybel, The Logic of Surprise in International Conflict
(Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1986).

40

In 1939, C. S. Lewis similarly took issue with
theologians on the issue of the just war doctrine, preferring elements of jus
in bello. See William Griffin, Clive Staples Lewis: A Dramatic Life
(San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1986), p. 159. I am currently working on
further research into the biblical idea of jus in bello and its use by
modern nations in their laws relating to military conduct.

Deuteronomy 20 discusses this and other possible
exceptions. Here, I am interested only in those cases where Christians ought to
make allowance for other Christians. Whether such exceptions should be made law
for the entire society is a different matter.